See page two of the document I linked, and read from where it starts, “In a thorough opinion, a panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed. 742 F. 3d 1144. ...”
742 F. 3D 1144 was the original case brought and decided for the sheriff. If you read further you’ll see that the Ninth reversed this ruling and that’s what currently stands since the court won’t hear this particular case (which is good) but also the larger issue of how much a state can regulate the public bearing of arms remains unanswered as well. Which is what Gorsich and Thomas are complaining about here.
The favorable ruling by a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit was in effect for about two weeks until the Ninth Circuit accepted a petition for re-hearing from the State of California. At that time my Sheriff, and most others in California, resumed their policy of demanding "good cause" beyond just self-defense.
It's my understanding that the sheriff of San Diego County, who did not appeal the favorable ruling, is presently NOT issuing permits for self-defense and I doubt that Peruta has been granted a permit.